[1] I'm pretty sure he didn't have them examine Whitman's tumor. Maybe the report about the tumor, but not the tumor itself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then clarify that. It sounds odd the way it is worded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant it needed to better clarified in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't qualify as being difficult just to be difficult, would it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps ... obtuse? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. 07:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no. I just commented that the sentence needed to be clarified and you responded by giving the link to the source. Then you changed the article. I thought you were just giving me a hard time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. It would be nice at some point to expand "motivations" to its own section as that's what many people would be interested in exploring/trying to understand. But with the information there, this is a good solution. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, we are on the edge of the same rathole. Let's not. I thought we reached consensus on the paragraph and now you are slipping it back toward OR and NPOV. Please revert and then explain what you are doing on the talk page. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page)I've just returned and made a few changes - specifically, which one are you referring to?--Victor9876 (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph was the topic of a long, arduous discussion (i.e. the rathole) - now mostly in the archives. It appeared we had reached some consensus on its status and you are altering it back towards the version I had objected to as OR and NPOV. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This diagnosis would later prove to be problematic..." And? That section is now truncated and ends after what is essentially a lead-in statement. There is no problem with combining this small section with the death section, or to at least elaborate on what was problematic. What does that mean? I dunno, I think perhaps the article needs to breathe a bit. Slow down on changing it all the time!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it appears constructive to you, it obviously doesn't to him and therefore is NOT constructive and it serves no purpose on his page. Somehow you guys manage to hit each other's buttons very quickly. Concentrating on finding ways of not pushing buttons while getting a useful message across probably IS constructive. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely made it the plural "you guys" and "each others" (now corrected to other's). I see it happening both ways and the (completely unsolicited) advice goes both ways (and in fact is a reasonable approach here in general, whomever is involved). I haven't had strong opinions on the content you are discussing and didn't want to jump into the fray. If I see an opportunity and find I can contribute to the content discussion, I'll do that on the talk page. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed " would you mind clarifying what you mean by others opinions about what brought Whitman to the tower? There is very little on the net." If there aren't any sources we can use for it, then I guess the status quo for the "motivations" will have to do. And I'm not sure if a precision error in a generalized headline (probably written by someone other than author) makes the whole article suspect. But it looks like we are choosing not to use it at the moment anyway. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't logged in for several months and just saw your message. I do know Phillip Conner, but haven't spoken with him in some time. I thought a page should be made, based on his role in the Whitman story as well as being the original owner of Real Ale Brewing Company. I hesitated to create the page myself (or edit the Real Ale page), because all the information I have would be considered original research. I'm also very new to Wikipedia editing. I'll see if I can find some official records. SpaceFrank (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question of the tumor. The way it was written, it seemed like that was definitively the cause, or part of the cause, but that's never been proven. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Connally report says "could have" and "may have". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "could have", not definitely. No way to know definitely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]